INTERNATIONAL LTD Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common question of fact and law arise for consideration in all these revision petitions,, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) ALL these revision petitions are filed under Sec. 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes courts' Act, against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. Facts leading to the presentation of these revision petitions are as under:

(3.) THE MSIL refuted the claim inter alia contending that there is no privity of contract between it and the Importer or the Insurer and therefore, it is not liable to pay any damages. It also contended that as per the public notice issued by the customs authority, its liability is limited only to 20 U. S. Dollars per Kilogram or the value of the imported goods whichever is less and if the MSIL is held to be liable, its liability is limited only to that extent. It also contended that though it was appointed as the custodian under Sec. 45 (1) of the Act, the customs Authority had the complete control over the goods as such it is not liable for payment of any damages to the importer. Upon receipt of the reply from the MSIL, the Insurer as well as Importer filed suits in S. C. Nos. 1087/03, 2326-2327/03,. 1080-1086, 1088-1089/03, 226/04, 280/04, 359-365/04, 417/04,459 and 460/04, initially only against msil seeking decree for recovery of the value of the goods with interest. The MSIL, upon service of suit summons in all those cases appeared before the respective Courts and contested the matter reiterating its stand which it had taken in its reply notice. It also contended that the suits are bad for non joinder of necessary parties viz. , the customs authority. In the light of the said defence, the plaintiffs by complying with requirement of sec. 155 (2) of the Act, by issuing notice to the customs authority, filed applications to implead customs authority. The applications were allowed and the Commissioner for Customs as well as Addl. Commissioner for Customs were impleaded as defendants 2 and 3.